Alticola was described as a
species by Gould (1860) and was so considered by Cory (1918), along with dumerilii
and leucophaea, currently considered subspecies of A.
amazilia. Chapman (1926) analyzed geographic variation in this group and
lumped alticola, dumerilii and leucophaea into A.
amazilia. He noted confusion with respect to type localities of some forms,
and cited specimens intermediate between alticola and dumerilii
from SW Ecuador.

Peters
(1945) lumped all forms into A. amazilia, as had Chapman. Zimmer (1950)
analyzed a larger series and came to essentially the same conclusion, i.e. that
all were races of A. amazilia. He noted great variation in the
extent of white coloration below in SW Ecuador, increase in size with elevation
in the group, individual variation and apparent introgression of alticola
characters into some populations of dumerilii and leucophaea.
Meyer de Schauensee (1966) maintained all as races of A.
amazilia, as did Sibley & Monroe (1990).

Weller
(2000) split A. alticola as a separate species based upon
presumed habitat differences, parapatry without interbreeding and vocal
repertoires. Description of habitats suggests that separation might not be
complete, and his interpretations of habitats and parapatry were apparently
based entirely upon specimen data as he did not mention field work; in no place
are the vocal differences specified, and the possibility of song dialects was
not considered. Color variation considered by Chapman and Zimmer as
introgression was interpreted by Weller to represent individual variation,
though the rationale was not entirely clear. Weller cited significant
differences in size between alticola and other forms, though
he did not separate subsamples geographically to check for trends. He presented
a "biogeography and speciation model" to explain and support his
interpretation, but this was based more upon subjective interpretations of
plumage coloration than hard data: genetic data were lacking. Schuchmann (1999)
anticipated Weller's publication in splitting alticola in HBW
vol. 5.

Finally,
Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) did not accept Weller's split, citing a
probable undescribed taxon in SW Ecuador (where Zimmer had noted great
variation in coloration). As these authors have presumably had much field
experience in the region and Ridgely had analyzed specimens, their
recommendation for caution in recognizing alticola merits serious
consideration: the situation may well be more complicated than Weller's
analysis suggests, especially as some key differences adduced by Weller (voice,
habitat) were evidently not observed by him directly.

Because
the situation clearly merits further work, I recommend a NO vote on this
proposal pending a thorough analysis including field and genetic studies.

Comments from Zimmer: "NO. More fieldwork is clearly needed.
There are some instances where chopping away at a complex problem in piecemeal
fashion is preferred over waiting for an overall review, but I don't think this
is one of them."